Sofokleousin.gr – Jul. 14, 2016 

The Syrian crisis, in fact, is not a civil war or a revolution against a dictator. It is more of a regional and international conflict. Leaks about the inability of the partners to control and manage the Syrian territories and the ongoing conflicts in the region are far from the truth.

If there is a solution, it will only come through an external settlement, after all sides agree on a road map to resolve the crisis.

What happens after the Russian-Turkish agreement

Over the past three weeks we saw many meetings, announced and unannounced, between the partners controlling the Syrian crisis, the most important and with the greatest impact being the return of Russian-Turkish relations to their old form, as well as the visit of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the US.

While some countries are trying to find a way to end this costly conflict, others try to block a solution. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Moscow next week is the most important.

Contrary to the announcements in the media that it will be about the discussion about the fight against Al Nusra in Syria, the truth is completely different. The purpose of this visit is for the American side to gain access to the new Russian plan for the Syrian crisis. But will the Americans accept it?

Russian plan to resolve the Syrian crisis

The Russian plan calls for the removal of Bashar Al Assad and the installation of a senior officer in the Syrian armed forces who is Alawite, has not dyed his hands with Syrian blood and has not become involved in the Syrian conflict, assisted by an officer who is Sunni.

The two officers will set up a military council made up of serving Syrian officers as well as defectors that will rule the country for a nine-month transition period, amend the constitution, organize parliamentary elections and then presidential elections. The names of the two officers, according to my sources, are former Defense Minister General Ali Habib (who is Alawite) and General Manaf Tlass (who is Sunni).

General Ali Habib, 77, fought in the October 1973 war against Israel and was one of the military leaders in the Beirut battles. He was in charge of the Syrian brigade during Operation Desert Storm I against Saddam Hussein – which makes his relationship with Saudi Arabia good – in 1994 he became the commander of the special forces and in 2009 he was chosen as the minister of defense.

When the Syrian revolution broke out, General Habib took a clear stand against the use of force to resolve the crisis, and in August of that year he disobeyed Assad’s orders to attack the city of Hama with the army, which is why he was replaced by the Christian General Dawou Rajha.

Mysteriously, General Ali Habib managed to travel to Paris with his daughter.  Reliable Turkish sources confirm that on 10th of July, General Habib was officially received in Ankara  in the presence of the Chief of the Turkish General Staff and the Director of Turkish Intelligence Hakan Fidan.

For two days, the three men held consultations attended by representatives of the Syrian opposition militias, led by the representative of  the Ahrar al-Sham militia. Then, in utmost secrecy, General Habib traveled to Moscow. The same sources said that the General will return to Ankara at the end of this month to meet with officers from Assad’s army, as well as the director of the Jordanian intelligence service.

Finally, French sources affirm that during the last two months there have been many meetings between generals Habib and Tlass in Paris. The same sources said that General Tlass traveled on July 9 in Jordan, where he met the head of Jordanian intelligence.

Despite the reported secret moves, there is little hope for a solution acceptable to regional and international powers. The Iranians remain attached to keeping Assad in power, the Americans insist on creating a Kurdish state in northern Syria.

Are we in front of the end of the biggest conflict and an international crisis affecting the whole world, or are we facing a new setback that will confirm the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and the Security Council in solving international crises?